Current Events > Progressives keep calling Trump a dictator, but now they want him to be one

(+) Yeah! (+)

UnfairRepresent posted...

Delusion would be like claiming the UK is a Muslim nation.

He says the collective progressive dream is Venezuela which is equally delusional as that.

byrone posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Delusion would be like claiming the UK is a Muslim nation.

He says the collective progressive dream is Venezuela which is equally delusional as that.

I think you're conflating delusion with being wrong.

If I said it's 4:45 and it's actually 4:56 that's not delusion.

If I said "Well it actually is 4:45, the time people are just lying because they are out to get me as they know I'm planning to stop them!" then that's delusional.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

So I asked for you to choose any of the 150 proposals that have been shut down and you countered that the opinion of someone (not the actual legislation) is what matter more?

And I said that was a non-sequitur. I don't know how many proposals they put forward were unconstitutional, but I can say that since 2011 Obama used Australia's confiscation model as an example for American gun policy, which would be completely unconstitutional.

https://www.rt.com/usa/165384-obama-australia-gun-law/

But let me guess, Obama doesn't count because he personally never submitted an unconstitutional proposal to enforce it even though he plainly called on Congress to do it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

The difference it makes is whether or not is fair to say that he represents the views of the average Labour party voter.

He really doesn't.

And that's not a defense nor an attack on either him or the Labour Party. It's just a fact. You're either lying or have been mislead or both if you think his views are a reflection of popular views in the UK.

What do you want, a cohesive poll of progressives who view socialism positively?

Ok then:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/democrats-poll-socialism-219600

Over half of all Democrats say socialism has a positive impact. And considering how surely fewer than half of all Democrats are actually progressives, I think it;s fair to say that basically all progressives (in the US at least) want socialism.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

byrone posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

Delusion would be like claiming the UK is a Muslim nation.

He says the collective progressive dream is Venezuela which is equally delusional as that.

I think you're conflating delusion with being wrong.

If I said it's 4:45 and it's actually 4:56 that's not delusion.

If I said "Well it actually is 4:45, the time people are just lying because they are out to get me as they know I'm planning to stop them!" then that's delusional.

How is saying that the collective progressive dream is Venezuela and the UK is a Muslim nation different? They're both wrong but if the person has convinced themselves of it to be true then they're delusional.

Mal_Fet posted...

What do you want, a cohesive poll of progressives who view socialism positively?

Ok then:

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/democrats-poll-socialism-219600

Over half of all Democrats say socialism has a positive impact. And considering how surely fewer than half of all Democrats are actually progressives, I think it;s fair to say that basically all progressives (in the US at least) want socialism.

But.... what does any of this have to do with Corbyn and the UK population? O_o

Wut.

How is saying that the collective progressive dream is Venezuela and the UK is a Muslim nation different?

I'd say so. Yes.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

So I asked for you to choose any of the 150 proposals that have been shut down and you countered that the opinion of someone (not the actual legislation) is what matter more?

And I said that was a non-sequitur. I don't know how many proposals they put forward were unconstitutional, but I can say that since 2011 Obama used Australia's confiscation model as an example for American gun policy, which would be completely unconstitutional.

https://www.rt.com/usa/165384-obama-australia-gun-law/

But let me guess, Obama doesn't count because he personally never submitted an unconstitutional proposal to enforce it even though he plainly called on Congress to do it

So you don't actually know anything about the "unconstitutional" proposals that make people dictators for considering them.

Next time just say you don't actually know anything about the subject.

For the record Obama is fair game. I still don't know why you think I'm some liberal identity politics enthusiast but I'm not. You find anything period and I'll concede. But you won't.
---

Mal Fet shitposting over the graves of 17 children.

Not surprising
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Kineth posted...

Pepys Monster posted...

Liberals want to live in a police state.

Ah, so liberals are anti-police and for a police state. Yes, that makes complete sense.

Never said they were consistent. Many of them say that only the police should be allowed to have guns.

Further, progressives (in general) want free healthcare, free housing, free tampons, free sex changes, and little or no work required of them. Where do you find all these things?

Prison.

Huh. Impressive.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'd say so. Yes

Neither is based in reality. They're both delusional.

byrone posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'd say so. Yes

Neither is based in reality. They're both delusional.

It's just semantics who cares if it's delusional or just wrong. It's really not worth arguing about when you're both in agreement that is argument is flawed.

UnfairRepresent posted...

But.... what does any of this have to do with Corbyn and the UK population? O_o

Wut.

You didn't like the Corbyn example because you say he doesn't represent progressives so I gave you en example that does. What's the problem?

Zeeak4444 posted...

"unconstitutional" proposals that make people dictators for considering them.

Such as Obama, yes.

ZMythos posted...

Mal Fet shitposting over the graves of 17 children.

Not surprising

I thought gun control advocates always complain that it's "never a good time" to discuss gun control...? Well here I am discussing it. I thought that's what you all wanted
---

The Politico story said...

The two competing economic theories were described to respondents by the pollster. Socialism was defined as a system for those who believe corporations have too much control and that the capitalist system is set up to favor the rich and powerful, and that the only way to police corporations and protect the citizens is for the government to take a larger role in managing the economy to make sure that every individual has equal access to basic necessities and public goods, even if that means that some people have to transfer their wealth to others."

Free market capitalism, meanwhile, was described as the world-view for those who say that its not the governments job to pick winners and losers and that government intervention only leads to inefficiency. They say that capitalism produces the greatest amount of personal and economic freedom for every individual and [it] ultimately results in the best economic outcome for society, even if some people are left behind because they cant compete.

After hearing those descriptions, 40 percent of the overall primary voters said they preferred the former, compared to 25 percent who picked the latter.

Ctrl+F Venezuela etc
---

Mal_Fet posted...

You didn't like the Corbyn example because you say he doesn't represent progressives so I have you en example that does. What's the problem?

I didn't say anything about "progressives" I said you need to beware the notion that Corbyn reflects the views of the British population, which is false.

Just be careful what you read, sites try to rile you up.

gp1829 posted...

byrone posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'd say so. Yes

Neither is based in reality. They're both delusional.

It's just semantics who cares if it's delusional or just wrong. It's really not worth arguing about when you're both in agreement that is argument is flawed.

I suppose but I think the distinction has a big difference

Mal_Fet posted...

I thought gun control advocates always complain that it's "never a good time" to discuss gun control...? Well here I am discussing it. I thought that's what you all wanted

Starting out by saying supporting increased gun control is a Police State and Dictatorship is a dishonest opening to a discussion dude.

and that's before you started going off on unrelated tangets

Reminds me of Mr Garrison discussing Evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL9S-TUikfg

You don't seem to want to discuss things with people, you seem to want to preach at them.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Ctrl+F Venezuela etc

What? Wresting control from the corporations for the purposes of providing services to everyone is exactly what the Venezuelan government did.
---

Why is it so hard to admit you were wrong.

You've:
1) Admitted you don't know anything about any of the proposals we've had.

2) Can't define why any of those proposals you know nothing about are unconstitutional

3) Been unable to explain why advocating/proposing legislation is a trait of a dictator

4) Cite a single instance of an outright gunban being proposed on anything aside from
ARs.

How do you lose so much in one topic and still be delusional enough to think you've done anything but look like a fool?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I didn't say anything about "progressives" I said you need to beware the notion that Corbyn reflects the views of the British population, which is false.

You took issue with how I chose to represent progressives, so I represented them in another way. What's the problem?
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

1) Admitted you don't know anything about any of the proposals we've had.

You're the one who brought up specific proposals, not me.

Zeeak4444 posted...

3) Been unable to explain why advocating/proposing legislation is a trait of a dictator

Yes I have. Dictators always do it.

Zeeak4444 posted...

4) Cite a single instance of an outright gunban being proposed on anything aside from
ARs.

Obama literally advocated for confiscation....
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I thought gun control advocates always complain that it's "never a good time" to discuss gun control...? Well here I am discussing it. I thought that's what you all wanted

Your OP wasn't designed to "open discussion." It wad meant for you to patronize your opposition while standing on a pedestal made from the bodies of dead children. Its pretty fucking slimy and if this is you at your best then there's no point to even discussing your alleged purpose for this topic
---

Mal_Fet posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Ctrl+F Venezuela etc

What? Wresting control from the corporations for the purposes of providing services to everyone is exactly what the Venezuelan government did.

The description forgiven given in the poll also fits a range of democracies that have already been mentioned ITT. It's not a description that only fits Venezuela, or even fits Venezuela the best. The "socialism" in the study is clearly defined to include social democracies.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Obama literally advocated for confiscation....

And Trump has advocated banning dissent, but with him it's very important for you to stick to policy because rhetoric means nothing. Consistency Mal
---

Mal_Fet posted...

You took issue with how I chose to represent progressives,

No, I took issue with you falling into a trap of painting whole populations with views they don't have based on incorrect reasoning...

And you don't seem to realize why that's a bad thing.

You're the one talking about "progressives"

I'm not even entirely sure what "progressives" even means universially as progression is debatable.

The Rightest Wing political groups in the UK are more left wing than the Democrats in America.... So by that logic is UKIP and BNP progressive?

I mean Hitler was the father of Animal Cruelty laws, was he progressive?

I don't know or really care. Progressive feels like a buzzword that can mean anything you want it too.

I'm just pointing out you were wrong to think Corby represents the UK, The labour party or the average voter and that's something you need to be wary of in future if you're using things you read on the Internet to be your source for attitudes.
---

Well now that we've established that this topic title is a lie I guess I'm done here.
---

ZMythos posted...

Your OP wasn't designed to "open discussion." It wad meant for you to patronize your opposition while standing on a pedestal made from the bodies of dead children.

I brought up zero dead children. In fact, it was everyone else who, in response to my statistics-based arguments, that were saying shit like "17 kids are dead and you think that's OK!!!!!!!!"

If that's not standing on the graves of dead children to push an agenda then I don't know what is.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

No, I took issue with you falling into a trap of painting whole populations with views they don't have based on incorrect reasoning...

And I deferred to your judgment and replaced the example I used with one that doesn't have the issues you raised.

What's. the. problem?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

No, I took issue with you falling into a trap of painting whole populations with views they don't have based on incorrect reasoning...

And I deferred to your judgment and replaced the example I used with one that doesn't have the issues you raised.

What's. the. problem?

That it in no way supports the notion that Venezuela is the progressivist ideal
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I brought up zero dead children. In fact, it was everyone else who, in response to my statistics-based arguments, that were saying shit like "17 kids are dead and you think that's OK!!!!!!!!"

You literally were arguing that it's acceptable so long as homicide rates and suicide rates were lower statistically than some other nations dude.

You can't argue that people were being unreasonable after you said that.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And I deferred to your judgment and replaced the example I used with one that doesn't have the issues you raised.

What's. the. problem?

There isn't one really.

So here's an amusing gif of a dog:


---

scar the 1 posted...

That it in no way supports the notion that Venezuela is the progressivist ideal

Socialism is the progressive ideal. Every major socialist praised Venezuela right up until their economy collapsed like every other socialist state's did. Ergo, Venezuela is the result of the progressive ideal.

UnfairRepresent posted...

You literally were arguing that it's acceptable

Wrong. I said that looking only at mass shootings rather than homicides overall is missing the forest for the trees.

You know for someone who constantly claims I can't see nuance you are really dense at parsing relevant information.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Socialism is the progressive ideal. Every major socialist praised Venezuela right up until they're economy collapsed like every other socialist state's did. Ergo, Venezuela is the result of the progressive ideal.

The socialism defined in the study is not the same as the ostensible socialism of Venezuela.
Socialism has different meanings in different contexts. You know this. Just like how The People's Republic of China isn't the Republican ideal just because they both happen to use the same word.
---

scar the 1 posted...

The socialism defined in the study is not the same as the ostensible socialism of Venezuela.

Mal_Fet posted...

Wresting control from the corporations for the purposes of providing services to everyone is exactly what the Venezuelan government did.

Social democracies don't involve the government taking control of the economy. They just entail more government services and wealth redistribution.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Okay now show me the graphs for mass shootings, specifically focusing on school shootings worldwide.

You know the thing we are all talking about which is uniquely a problem in America yet you refuse to act like it is or that guns are related.

Why is it that the UK had 1 mass school shooting, increased gun laws and the never had another one?

Meanwhile you will never admit this but we both know there is going to be another at least 2 school shootings with 5+ dead in the US in 2018 alone. At least.

Gangbangers will kill more than that in the US in the next WEEK.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Wrong. I said that looking only at mass shootings is missing the forest for the trees.

In the context of Mass Shootings, especially in an epididemic that is unique to one single nation. I strongly disagree.

I reject your notion that a correlation between America (arguably the greatest country in the world) and lower homicide/suicide rates than some other nations proves that gun-control doesn't work and wouldn't help stop mass shootings.

Especially up against the other correlation that nations which did have mass shootings and then increased gun control ended up no longer having mass shootings.

Your argument entirely is "Gun Control will cause spikes in homicide and suicide of greater value of lives than these massacared kids because guys in the UK keep stabbing each other all the time like bunnies with knives instead of dicks."

And you don't view that argument as a non-sequitur.

Hell I've literally seen you be angry and shout at people (usually Liberals) for viewing correlation in data as causation on several occasions, yet it's your only argument here. And it's not even a good one
---

So @UnfairRepresent I have to ask now.

Is it delusion? Or is he just a disingenuous and dishonest person?
---

darkjedilink posted...

Gangbangers will kill more than that in the US in the next WEEK.

Yeah.

Which is why IMO we should legalize or decriminalize drugs. But that's a whole other topic.

One thing I think everyone in this topic can agree on is that gun control laws or the complete lack thereof would not stop gangs or drugrunners for shooting each other for profit.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

So @UnfairRepresent I have to ask now.

Is it delusion? Or is he just a disingenuous and dishonest person?

No it's not delusion.

We just disagree.

You don't need to be so rude.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

scar the 1 posted...

The socialism defined in the study is not the same as the ostensible socialism of Venezuela.

Mal_Fet posted...

Wresting control from the corporations for the purposes of providing services to everyone is exactly what the Venezuelan government did.

Social democracies don't involve the government taking control of the economy. They just entail more government services and wealth redistribution.

Wealth distribution definitely qualifies as "government to take a larger role in managing the economy to make sure that every individual has equal access to basic necessities and public goods, even if that means that some people have to transfer their wealth to others".
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

In the context of Mass Shootings, especially in an epididemic that is unique to one single nation. I strongly disagree.

I reject your notion that a correlation between America (arguably the greatest country in the world) and lower homicide/suicide rates than some other nations proves that gun-control doesn't work and wouldn't help stop mass shootings.

A correlation doesn't imply causation. Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before the gun ban, which means fewer mass shootings afterward is pretty statistically insignificant.

And by thew way, the homicide rate in Australia dropped at a slower rate than America's did in the time after their gun ban. Shall we take that to mean a gun ban will result in slower homicide rate decline? It's a correlation, after all.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

scar the 1 posted...

The socialism defined in the study is not the same as the ostensible socialism of Venezuela.

Mal_Fet posted...

Wresting control from the corporations for the purposes of providing services to everyone is exactly what the Venezuelan government did.

Social democracies don't involve the government taking control of the economy. They just entail more government services and wealth redistribution.

Wealth distribution definitely qualifies as "government to take a larger role in managing the economy to make sure that every individual has equal access to basic necessities and public goods, even if that means that some people have to transfer their wealth to others".

The question you quoted specifically mentioned taking control away from corporations. That's how it's different from just social democracy.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The question you quoted specifically mentioned taking control away from corporations. That's how it's different from just social democracy.

No, social democracies do that.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

So @UnfairRepresent I have to ask now.

Is it delusion? Or is he just a disingenuous and dishonest person?

No it's not delusion.

We just disagree.

You don't need to be so rude.

I disagree. That much dishonesty entails rudeness. You can't cite gun control proposals as unconstitutional if you can't back up why any of them are.

When someone goes out of their way to say blatantly false information which is the number one reasons gun control goes no where I think it's quite fair to be rude.

If he was able to make any argument at all, regardless if it's right or not, to back up his initial claims I might agree with you.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

In the context of Mass Shootings, especially in an epididemic that is unique to one single nation. I strongly disagree.

I reject your notion that a correlation between America (arguably the greatest country in the world) and lower homicide/suicide rates than some other nations proves that gun-control doesn't work and wouldn't help stop mass shootings.

A correlation doesn't imply causation. Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before the gun ban, which means fewer mass shootings afterward is pretty statistically insignificant.

And by thew way, the homicide rate in Australia dropped at a slower rate than America's did in the time after their gun ban. Shall we take that to mean a gun ban will result in slower homicide rate decline? It's a correlation, after all.

I'd note every correlation but not view it as causation.

That's logic 101.

The key thing is I feel like you're ignoring that this is a problem that is literally unique to America purely because you feel that it reflects poorly on values that you like.

That's where the rest of the world comes in. Not on whether or not guns are good or bad or whether or not suicides rates will be in flux. But on the fact no one apart from the US has this problem where the population is in fear and knows that every few months or so some nut (who is always male) is going to massacre a bunch of kids for no good reason.

And the logic of "Maybe we should have efforts to make it hard for that nut to get guns." does not seem unreasonable. Especially after it was successful elsewhere. Going "Well if we make those efforts people will starting killing themselves in droves." however is unreasonable.
---

scar the 1 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

The question you quoted specifically mentioned taking control away from corporations. That's how it's different from just social democracy.

No, social democracies do that.

How so, most social democrat countries have a lower corporate tax rate than the US, even after the tax cuts

And a few more regulations on minimum wage and the like isn't wresting control from them either
---

Mal_Fet posted...

scar the 1 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

The question you quoted specifically mentioned taking control away from corporations. That's how it's different from just social democracy.

No, social democracies do that.

How so, most social democrat countries have a lower corporate tax rate than the US, even after the tax cuts

And a few more regulations on minimum wage and the like isn't wresting control from them either

Regulations definitely are a tool for the government to take a more active role in managing the economy. The question did not say "wrestling control from companies". The Swedish model fits the description given in the study.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

In the context of Mass Shootings, especially in an epididemic that is unique to one single nation. I strongly disagree.

I reject your notion that a correlation between America (arguably the greatest country in the world) and lower homicide/suicide rates than some other nations proves that gun-control doesn't work and wouldn't help stop mass shootings.

A correlation doesn't imply causation. Mass shootings in Australia were already rare before the gun ban, which means fewer mass shootings afterward is pretty statistically insignificant.

And by thew way, the homicide rate in Australia dropped at a slower rate than America's did in the time after their gun ban. Shall we take that to mean a gun ban will result in slower homicide rate decline? It's a correlation, after all.

I'd note every correlation but not view it as causation.

That's logic 101.

The key thing is I feel like you're ignoring that this is a problem that is literally unique to America purely because you feel that it reflects poorly on values that you like.

That's where the rest of the world comes in. Not on whether or not guns are good or bad or whether or not suicides rates will be in flux. But on the fact no one apart from the US has this problem where the population is in fear and knows that every few months or so some nut (who is always male) is going to massacre a bunch of kids for no good reason.

And the logic of "Maybe we should have efforts to make it hard for that nut to get guns." does not seem unreasonable. Especially after it was successful elsewhere. Going "Well if we make those efforts people will starting killing themselves in droves." however is unreasonable.

Look, as much as I'd love to continue delineating over possible statistical effects of gun control that ostensibly worked in other countries with far different populations and histories, it's 4:30 in the morning and I have math homework to do. So in my place, I will post this video of a guy only slightly less insufferable than me responding to many of the arguments you guys have been putting forward, including mass shootings, with more statistical data. Have fun

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IULSD8VwXEs
---

Why hasn't this topic been deleted yet? It is clearly intended for trolling.
---

thelovefist posted...

Why hasn't this topic been deleted yet? It is clearly intended for trolling.

I don't agree.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

thelovefist posted...

Why hasn't this topic been deleted yet? It is clearly intended for trolling.

I don't agree.

Mal has been unable to state how advocating for gun control is unconstitutional or would make Trump a dictator. He's been unable to provide reason to consider a single proposal for gun control we've had unconstitutional.

Would you like to take up his fight instead? I provided amble reasons along with sources stating why the OP is wrong, the topic title is a lie, and I gotta agree with him that this topic should be closed for trolling.
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Mal has been unable to state how advocating for gun control is unconstitutional or would make Trump a dictator. He's been unable to provide reason to consider a single proposal for gun control we've had unconstitutional.

Because he's bad at arguing. We've covered that.

Would you like to take up his fight instead?

Sure why not

It's questionable whether or not gun control in America would stop mass shootings.

A lot of the shooters either bought guns illegally or stole them from someone who bought them legally.

At the same time there's a lot of "near misses." for example The Orlando Shooter was turned away at a gun store because he was a lunatic, as a reuslt he just went to a different gun-store and bought his stuff.

And the Elliot Rogers guy actually was flagged by the police. They visited his home and spoke to him (when he had guns and a manfiesto in his home) and said he was a quiet, nice boy and then left.

So how do we know for sure that increased background checks or banning the sale of certain weaponry will stop people willing to kill 16 children from getting a gun?

I mean sure it worked for the UK and Japan and France and Australia and Canada and etc etc etc etc BUT they don't have the same gun culture, they don't have the same guns already in circulation, they don't have the same black market for illegal guns.

You'd be violating the second ammendment for something we're not even sure would work AND a third of the population would oppose aggressively.
---

How are we violating the second amendment? That's the only part of that post that matters.

I'm not someone who thinks gun control is gonna be a magical solution. I fully admit I'm in the camp of "it literally can't hurt".

How is better background checks or even banning ARs unconstitutional?

District of Columbia Vs Heller laid out a pretty good foundation for us.
---